Menu
▾
▴
phpeclipse-devel — Developers mailing list
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(85) |
Dec
(44) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(63) |
Feb
(47) |
Mar
(25) |
Apr
(79) |
May
(58) |
Jun
(30) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(59) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(21) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(51) |
Jul
(40) |
Aug
(16) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(50) |
Dec
(78) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(41) |
Feb
(84) |
Mar
(26) |
Apr
(61) |
May
(48) |
Jun
(82) |
Jul
(66) |
Aug
(58) |
Sep
(23) |
Oct
(182) |
Nov
(61) |
Dec
(112) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(343) |
Feb
(149) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(71) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(46) |
Jul
(42) |
Aug
(55) |
Sep
(52) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(37) |
Dec
(14) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(15) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(105) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
|
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(22) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-10-29 21:28:58
|
David, Are you trying to change these icons from Window->Preferences->PHPEclipse->PHP External Tools -> Apache? I can get them to be persistent for me, but i am on a Linux box. Let me know if that is what you are using. Thanks. > <HTML> > <P>I tried PHP-PDT from eclipse.org and found it too confusing to install. > Too many files! Too many dependencies! Phpeclipse is much better.</P> > <P>The Apache server icons at the top of the perspective do not work. I > don't remember how I got to the particular edit, but when I edited the > commands behind the icons, the changes would not persist. Attempting to > use the icons restored the commands to what they were. This was very > frustrating. Apache commands from the PHP/Apache dropdown do not work, > either.</P> > <P>What is "c:\xampp\apache\bin\apache.exe"? That should not be in the > Apache command. There is no Apache.exe on my machine, and the path to > Apache programs is "C:\Program Files\Apache Software > Foundation\Apache2.2\bin". The best way to start and stop Apache on > Windows, anyway, is "net start apache2.2" and "net stop apache2.2".</P> > <P>Can we get a change made so changes to commands on the menu bar will > remain? Thanks</P> > <P><BR> > -- <BR> > dgm <BR> > </P></HTML> > <BR> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/_______________________________________________ > PHPEclipse-devel mailing list > PHP...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpeclipse-devel > |
|
From: David M. <wo...@su...> - 2008-10-29 16:04:59
|
<HTML> <P>I tried PHP-PDT from eclipse.org and found it too confusing to install. Too many files! Too many dependencies! Phpeclipse is much better.</P> <P>The Apache server icons at the top of the perspective do not work. I don't remember how I got to the particular edit, but when I edited the commands behind the icons, the changes would not persist. Attempting to use the icons restored the commands to what they were. This was very frustrating. Apache commands from the PHP/Apache dropdown do not work, either.</P> <P>What is "c:\xampp\apache\bin\apache.exe"? That should not be in the Apache command. There is no Apache.exe on my machine, and the path to Apache programs is "C:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\bin". The best way to start and stop Apache on Windows, anyway, is "net start apache2.2" and "net stop apache2.2".</P> <P>Can we get a change made so changes to commands on the menu bar will remain? Thanks</P> <P><BR> -- <BR> dgm <BR> </P></HTML> <BR> |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-09-16 16:43:15
|
Lester, Try going to www.phpeclipse.net. The .com domain was to be updated to a new address, and you may be having a problem there. I will see about getting mod_rewrite on that box to re-direct you to the new server. Thanks. On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:06 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > Guys - I'm getting python errors when ever I try and access the trac forum stuff. > |
|
From: Pablo A. <sco...@us...> - 2008-09-16 14:01:31
|
Hello. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Lester Caine <ls...@bt...> wrote: > Guys - I'm getting python errors when ever I try and access the trac forum > stuff. It looks like you're trying to access the Trac site by the URL dev.phpeclipse.com which is still pending a redirect to be set. In the meantime, use http://www.phpeclipse.net/ and http://www.phpeclipse.net/discussion to access the wiki and the forums, respectively. Regards, -- scorphus em users.sf.net: Pablo Aguiar <http://sourceforge.net/users/scorphus> |
|
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-09-16 08:57:02
|
Lester Caine wrote: > Guys - I'm getting python errors when ever I try and access the trac forum stuff. > Hey Lester, I'm not up with the status on the site relocations, but I'm guessing you're referencing http://dev.phpeclipse.com, which looks to still be pointing at the old server. Try http://www.phpeclipse.net instead. IIRC, we're having a bit of a hard time getting the DNS for the .com domain transferred to "common ownership". ed_mann / ajt: Perhaps we could setup a forward on the previous server to save some confusion here. Sorry if I'm overlooking something... I'm on vacation "borrowing" some Parisian's wi-fi, so not as connected as I'd like to be; in any sense of the word. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Lester C. <ls...@bt...> - 2008-09-16 08:07:57
|
Guys - I'm getting python errors when ever I try and access the trac forum stuff. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-23 18:14:00
|
Maybe we can do sprints where we have say PHPEclipse 1.3.0M1 and in it we want to address these issues and add these features. It will last for 3 months. Anything that is not fixed will be moved to M2. Granted the goal is to set the workload to a level where we can deliver the goods, and not expect to much. The M builds should be stable enough to use, but may still have some hidden bombs. That way people can see steady progress of PHPEclipse, and not be subject to the instability of a nightly build. Thoughts on this are welcome, i hope i have been clear on what i am proposing. Thanks. On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:28 -0700, Mike Bowie wrote: > Edward Mann wrote: > > Everyone, > > > <snip> > > Also i would like to set a realistic time frame on the 1.3.0 version. I > > was going to give it 1 year, but i am welcome to other peoples input. > > Granted if you think it should be shorter i expect to see code from you. > > :-) > > Sorry for the delay in replying... I'm having a hard time coming up for > air these days. > > I'd like to see the project aim for a major release each year; sometime > around the time Eclipse does their milestone release. If there's an > opportunity to push a major build more than once a year, that would be > awesome; but I think for the number of active developers we have, aiming > too high may be detrimental to the process. The project has (and still > is) going through some pretty substantial changes and until things are a > bit more established, we should keep the focus revitalizing PHPEclipse > in it's codebase, features and community perception. > > Cheers, > > Mike. > > > "You don't see FreeBSD developers sitting in a smoke-filled room > plotting the overthrow of Microsoft. We sit in light, airy rooms and > plot where to get the best drinks." - Michael Lucas > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > PHPEclipse-devel mailing list > PHP...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpeclipse-devel |
|
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-07-23 00:28:41
|
Edward Mann wrote: > Everyone, > <snip> > Also i would like to set a realistic time frame on the 1.3.0 version. I > was going to give it 1 year, but i am welcome to other peoples input. > Granted if you think it should be shorter i expect to see code from you. > :-) Sorry for the delay in replying... I'm having a hard time coming up for air these days. I'd like to see the project aim for a major release each year; sometime around the time Eclipse does their milestone release. If there's an opportunity to push a major build more than once a year, that would be awesome; but I think for the number of active developers we have, aiming too high may be detrimental to the process. The project has (and still is) going through some pretty substantial changes and until things are a bit more established, we should keep the focus revitalizing PHPEclipse in it's codebase, features and community perception. Cheers, Mike. "You don't see FreeBSD developers sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting the overthrow of Microsoft. We sit in light, airy rooms and plot where to get the best drinks." - Michael Lucas |
|
From: Josh B. <jo...@ho...> - 2008-07-18 00:56:46
|
I love it that this is getting a lot of activity now, the only thing I am
thinking is maybe a year is too long, what about bi-yearly releases. That
way people don't have to wait so long and grow tired.
Of course I will help where ever I can if it's not code I'm sure I can beta
test everything.
A new feature I would like to see is some phpdoc generation. I.e.
What PDT does (I think its PDT) if you have a function.
Public Function test($adas, array $asdasd) { }
Then after you create the function do /** up top of it, it will autogen as
much as it knows about that method.
Also I would like to get some form of WTP integration within PHPEclipse
because without that you can't really use a black background because you
can't change HTML Tag colours.
I added a ticket a while back about some more theming solutions maybe with a
theme manager, I would love to be a big part of this, not to mention it's a
good way to get more creative people involved aswell.
If there is any help you need edmann just give me a holla in the IRC
channel.
-----Original Message-----
From: php...@li...
[mailto:php...@li...] On Behalf Of Edward
Mann
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:19 AM
To: php...@li...
Subject: [PHPEclipse-devel] Work starting on 1.3.0
Everyone,
I am starting work on PHPEclipse 1.3.0. This is in the branches. My idea
is to work on bugs to get them fixed. If it will not break compatibility i
will back-port them to 1.2.x(trunk). I have decided to keep the work that
incastrix did in the 1.3.0 branch and merge the changes form trunk into
it. I expect it to take me some time, and i will probably miss a few, but
it will get done. I will work on focusing on the major issues first that
affect both 1.2.x and 1.3.x. However if all i do is hunt bugs, even tho i
like it, i may burn out and stop working, so i want to add some new
features. I would spread them out so it would work like this.
1. Fix bugs as many as i can while refactoring code.
2. got tired of fixing bugs add new feature.
3. goto 1;
The bugs are what need some attention, and are important. But the features
help make the project easier for people to use. Here are some features i
want to add.
1. Class/Interface wizard.
2. New Code format with features similar to the Java.
3. Work with someone else on PHPUnit support.
I am willing to (and will) work on other things, but i will focus mostly
on bugs and the few features i want to add. Granted someone else can add
the features. Also i want to know what else people would like to see in
PHPEclipse, so feedback is welcome.
Also i would like to set a realistic time frame on the 1.3.0 version. I
was going to give it 1 year, but i am welcome to other peoples input.
Granted if you think it should be shorter i expect to see code from you.
:-)
Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
PHPEclipse-devel mailing list
PHP...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpeclipse-devel
|
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-17 21:19:19
|
Everyone, I am starting work on PHPEclipse 1.3.0. This is in the branches. My idea is to work on bugs to get them fixed. If it will not break compatibility i will back-port them to 1.2.x(trunk). I have decided to keep the work that incastrix did in the 1.3.0 branch and merge the changes form trunk into it. I expect it to take me some time, and i will probably miss a few, but it will get done. I will work on focusing on the major issues first that affect both 1.2.x and 1.3.x. However if all i do is hunt bugs, even tho i like it, i may burn out and stop working, so i want to add some new features. I would spread them out so it would work like this. 1. Fix bugs as many as i can while refactoring code. 2. got tired of fixing bugs add new feature. 3. goto 1; The bugs are what need some attention, and are important. But the features help make the project easier for people to use. Here are some features i want to add. 1. Class/Interface wizard. 2. New Code format with features similar to the Java. 3. Work with someone else on PHPUnit support. I am willing to (and will) work on other things, but i will focus mostly on bugs and the few features i want to add. Granted someone else can add the features. Also i want to know what else people would like to see in PHPEclipse, so feedback is welcome. Also i would like to set a realistic time frame on the 1.3.0 version. I was going to give it 1 year, but i am welcome to other peoples input. Granted if you think it should be shorter i expect to see code from you. :-) Thanks. |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-13 02:25:15
|
Team, I have made the 1.1.9 release and the 1.2.0 release. I did 1.1.9 first tagged it and then moved on to 1.2.0. I have uploaded the files to the SF site, and also created new update sites for stable builds. http://update.phpeclipse.net/update/stable/1.1.x and http://update.phpeclipse.net/update/stable/1.2.x On the sourceforge page you can download binary builds of the project, the update site and src packages. I tried to update the Freshmeat page, but the requests are still pending. Well i hope i did not forget anything. If i did please point it out. Thanks. |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-10 20:41:24
|
> Edward Mann wrote: >>> Edward Mann wrote: >>>> Ok, >>>> >>>> So i have had it with this 3.2 fragment issue. I have tried to get it >>>> to >>>> build, but my working environment is to new and is causing more issues >>>> for me working on 3.2. I have a version in Nightly that works. My idea >>>> is to keep it, make a update site for 3.2 and say if you want support >>>> move to 3.3. I have issues with 3.4 that i would like to work on, and >>>> i >>>> want to get things cleaned up for 3.4. >>>> >>>> So if someone else wants to take the 3.2 issue and work on it i will >>>> help where i can, it's mostly working, but it needs more attention, >>>> right now it will load the compatibility patch for everyone. I tried a >>>> workaround, but that only ended up in breaking the build. So i am >>>> throwing in the towel. I don't see it worth my time to get PHPEclipse >>>> 1.2.0 working on a very old version of Eclipse. >>>> >>>> Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, >>>> we >>>> will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we >>>> push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support >>>> Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done >>>> quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with >>>> Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major >>>> release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can >>>> get >>>> in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. >>>> >>>> >From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should >>>> target a >>>> release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we >>>> depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older >>>> release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so >>>> we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then >>>> again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. >>>> But >>>> your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but >>>> it's >>>> gotta be worth fixing for me. >>>> >>> Good day folks, >>> >>> I think the victory here is being overshadowed by somewhat of a minor >>> issue... the fact is that a rather annoying compatibility issue, >>> (which, >>> IMHO was partially introduced upstream,) has been resolved! Big >>> high-fives all round for Mr Mann, as he's done a great job working it >>> out amongst all his other "real world" commitments. >>> >>> I'd like to suggest that we roll a final 1.1.x build with the fragment >>> included, then push 1.2.0 without it. In an ideal world, I'd like to >>> see the project continue to support 3.2, but I do agree that moving >>> forward is a more pressing need. I'd imagine that the nightly is going >>> to go through some pretty radical "changes" in the few months following >>> 1.2.0, so hopefully we'll see the majority of users using the stable >>> build. >>> >>> I would like to keep the 3.2 fragment and any notes related to it handy >>> though... while I appreciate what people are saying about 3.2 being >>> old, >>> from what we see in IRC, it is a widely used build; and there are users >>> who are quite happy with 3.2. I personally think it's a case of the >>> "tail wagging to dog" for a plugin to force you to update your >>> environment... that sounds like something a business driven model would >>> do. I also understand the point that the Eclipse project deems 3.2 to >>> be "old news", but if PHPEclipse's visions were parallel to that of the >>> Eclipse Foundation, we'd all have joined the PDT project long ago. >>> >>> So let's not overlook the fact that we have a solution which we can >>> "roll by hand" for the time being; and if we continue to see this as an >>> issue as we approach future milestones, maybe it can be re-addressed >>> then. I'd be happy to pickup Mr Mann's efforts at some point, should >>> the need arise. >>> >>> Perhaps we could consider adding an "opt-in" anonymous usage statistics >>> feature... something which reported a handful of platform and version >>> number details on startup. In future, that would give us *some* idea >>> of >>> the builds in the wild and the platforms actively in use. Although, I >>> think said feature would be even better in the Eclipse core. >>> >>> I think this is awesome progress... great work Mr Mann! >>> >>> Mike. >>> >> >> Mike, >> >> If i am reading you correct, this is what i am going to do. >> >> I am going to make a 1.1.9 release of PHPEclipse that has the fragment >> installed. Users with Eclipse 3.2 will need to use this release. >> >> Then i am going to make another release for Eclipse 3.3 for 1.2.0. This >> will be a build right from trunk without the fragment. And users of >> Eclipse 3.3 will use this build. >> >> We would only be doing fixes in trunk, and testing on 3.3 of Eclipse. >> The >> Hudson build for 1.2.0 will move to the Eclipse 3.3 SDK. I have been >> building with 3.2... i believe. >> >> Anything missing? >> >> Thanks for the responses everyone. Now i don't feel like the lone voice >> shouting into the darkens. >> > > Edwardo, > > That is indeed what I'm suggesting. > > Mike. > Mike, I will make it so number 1. I will get this done 2night. I will get release update sites up and going. I will see if i can get this done tonight. Thanks. |
|
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-07-10 20:36:10
|
Edward Mann wrote: >> Edward Mann wrote: >>> Ok, >>> >>> So i have had it with this 3.2 fragment issue. I have tried to get it to >>> build, but my working environment is to new and is causing more issues >>> for me working on 3.2. I have a version in Nightly that works. My idea >>> is to keep it, make a update site for 3.2 and say if you want support >>> move to 3.3. I have issues with 3.4 that i would like to work on, and i >>> want to get things cleaned up for 3.4. >>> >>> So if someone else wants to take the 3.2 issue and work on it i will >>> help where i can, it's mostly working, but it needs more attention, >>> right now it will load the compatibility patch for everyone. I tried a >>> workaround, but that only ended up in breaking the build. So i am >>> throwing in the towel. I don't see it worth my time to get PHPEclipse >>> 1.2.0 working on a very old version of Eclipse. >>> >>> Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, we >>> will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we >>> push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support >>> Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done >>> quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with >>> Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major >>> release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can get >>> in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. >>> >>> >From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should target a >>> release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we >>> depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older >>> release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so >>> we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then >>> again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. But >>> your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but it's >>> gotta be worth fixing for me. >>> >> Good day folks, >> >> I think the victory here is being overshadowed by somewhat of a minor >> issue... the fact is that a rather annoying compatibility issue, (which, >> IMHO was partially introduced upstream,) has been resolved! Big >> high-fives all round for Mr Mann, as he's done a great job working it >> out amongst all his other "real world" commitments. >> >> I'd like to suggest that we roll a final 1.1.x build with the fragment >> included, then push 1.2.0 without it. In an ideal world, I'd like to >> see the project continue to support 3.2, but I do agree that moving >> forward is a more pressing need. I'd imagine that the nightly is going >> to go through some pretty radical "changes" in the few months following >> 1.2.0, so hopefully we'll see the majority of users using the stable >> build. >> >> I would like to keep the 3.2 fragment and any notes related to it handy >> though... while I appreciate what people are saying about 3.2 being old, >> from what we see in IRC, it is a widely used build; and there are users >> who are quite happy with 3.2. I personally think it's a case of the >> "tail wagging to dog" for a plugin to force you to update your >> environment... that sounds like something a business driven model would >> do. I also understand the point that the Eclipse project deems 3.2 to >> be "old news", but if PHPEclipse's visions were parallel to that of the >> Eclipse Foundation, we'd all have joined the PDT project long ago. >> >> So let's not overlook the fact that we have a solution which we can >> "roll by hand" for the time being; and if we continue to see this as an >> issue as we approach future milestones, maybe it can be re-addressed >> then. I'd be happy to pickup Mr Mann's efforts at some point, should >> the need arise. >> >> Perhaps we could consider adding an "opt-in" anonymous usage statistics >> feature... something which reported a handful of platform and version >> number details on startup. In future, that would give us *some* idea of >> the builds in the wild and the platforms actively in use. Although, I >> think said feature would be even better in the Eclipse core. >> >> I think this is awesome progress... great work Mr Mann! >> >> Mike. >> > > Mike, > > If i am reading you correct, this is what i am going to do. > > I am going to make a 1.1.9 release of PHPEclipse that has the fragment > installed. Users with Eclipse 3.2 will need to use this release. > > Then i am going to make another release for Eclipse 3.3 for 1.2.0. This > will be a build right from trunk without the fragment. And users of > Eclipse 3.3 will use this build. > > We would only be doing fixes in trunk, and testing on 3.3 of Eclipse. The > Hudson build for 1.2.0 will move to the Eclipse 3.3 SDK. I have been > building with 3.2... i believe. > > Anything missing? > > Thanks for the responses everyone. Now i don't feel like the lone voice > shouting into the darkens. > Edwardo, That is indeed what I'm suggesting. Mike. |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-10 20:04:40
|
> Edward Mann wrote: >> Ok, >> >> So i have had it with this 3.2 fragment issue. I have tried to get it to >> build, but my working environment is to new and is causing more issues >> for me working on 3.2. I have a version in Nightly that works. My idea >> is to keep it, make a update site for 3.2 and say if you want support >> move to 3.3. I have issues with 3.4 that i would like to work on, and i >> want to get things cleaned up for 3.4. >> >> So if someone else wants to take the 3.2 issue and work on it i will >> help where i can, it's mostly working, but it needs more attention, >> right now it will load the compatibility patch for everyone. I tried a >> workaround, but that only ended up in breaking the build. So i am >> throwing in the towel. I don't see it worth my time to get PHPEclipse >> 1.2.0 working on a very old version of Eclipse. >> >> Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, we >> will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we >> push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support >> Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done >> quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with >> Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major >> release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can get >> in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. >> >>>From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should target a >> release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we >> depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older >> release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so >> we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then >> again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. But >> your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but it's >> gotta be worth fixing for me. >> > > Good day folks, > > I think the victory here is being overshadowed by somewhat of a minor > issue... the fact is that a rather annoying compatibility issue, (which, > IMHO was partially introduced upstream,) has been resolved! Big > high-fives all round for Mr Mann, as he's done a great job working it > out amongst all his other "real world" commitments. > > I'd like to suggest that we roll a final 1.1.x build with the fragment > included, then push 1.2.0 without it. In an ideal world, I'd like to > see the project continue to support 3.2, but I do agree that moving > forward is a more pressing need. I'd imagine that the nightly is going > to go through some pretty radical "changes" in the few months following > 1.2.0, so hopefully we'll see the majority of users using the stable > build. > > I would like to keep the 3.2 fragment and any notes related to it handy > though... while I appreciate what people are saying about 3.2 being old, > from what we see in IRC, it is a widely used build; and there are users > who are quite happy with 3.2. I personally think it's a case of the > "tail wagging to dog" for a plugin to force you to update your > environment... that sounds like something a business driven model would > do. I also understand the point that the Eclipse project deems 3.2 to > be "old news", but if PHPEclipse's visions were parallel to that of the > Eclipse Foundation, we'd all have joined the PDT project long ago. > > So let's not overlook the fact that we have a solution which we can > "roll by hand" for the time being; and if we continue to see this as an > issue as we approach future milestones, maybe it can be re-addressed > then. I'd be happy to pickup Mr Mann's efforts at some point, should > the need arise. > > Perhaps we could consider adding an "opt-in" anonymous usage statistics > feature... something which reported a handful of platform and version > number details on startup. In future, that would give us *some* idea of > the builds in the wild and the platforms actively in use. Although, I > think said feature would be even better in the Eclipse core. > > I think this is awesome progress... great work Mr Mann! > > Mike. > Mike, If i am reading you correct, this is what i am going to do. I am going to make a 1.1.9 release of PHPEclipse that has the fragment installed. Users with Eclipse 3.2 will need to use this release. Then i am going to make another release for Eclipse 3.3 for 1.2.0. This will be a build right from trunk without the fragment. And users of Eclipse 3.3 will use this build. We would only be doing fixes in trunk, and testing on 3.3 of Eclipse. The Hudson build for 1.2.0 will move to the Eclipse 3.3 SDK. I have been building with 3.2... i believe. Anything missing? Thanks for the responses everyone. Now i don't feel like the lone voice shouting into the darkens. |
|
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-07-10 14:18:46
|
Edward Mann wrote: > Ok, > > So i have had it with this 3.2 fragment issue. I have tried to get it to > build, but my working environment is to new and is causing more issues > for me working on 3.2. I have a version in Nightly that works. My idea > is to keep it, make a update site for 3.2 and say if you want support > move to 3.3. I have issues with 3.4 that i would like to work on, and i > want to get things cleaned up for 3.4. > > So if someone else wants to take the 3.2 issue and work on it i will > help where i can, it's mostly working, but it needs more attention, > right now it will load the compatibility patch for everyone. I tried a > workaround, but that only ended up in breaking the build. So i am > throwing in the towel. I don't see it worth my time to get PHPEclipse > 1.2.0 working on a very old version of Eclipse. > > Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, we > will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we > push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support > Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done > quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with > Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major > release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can get > in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. > >>From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should target a > release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we > depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older > release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so > we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then > again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. But > your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but it's > gotta be worth fixing for me. > Good day folks, I think the victory here is being overshadowed by somewhat of a minor issue... the fact is that a rather annoying compatibility issue, (which, IMHO was partially introduced upstream,) has been resolved! Big high-fives all round for Mr Mann, as he's done a great job working it out amongst all his other "real world" commitments. I'd like to suggest that we roll a final 1.1.x build with the fragment included, then push 1.2.0 without it. In an ideal world, I'd like to see the project continue to support 3.2, but I do agree that moving forward is a more pressing need. I'd imagine that the nightly is going to go through some pretty radical "changes" in the few months following 1.2.0, so hopefully we'll see the majority of users using the stable build. I would like to keep the 3.2 fragment and any notes related to it handy though... while I appreciate what people are saying about 3.2 being old, from what we see in IRC, it is a widely used build; and there are users who are quite happy with 3.2. I personally think it's a case of the "tail wagging to dog" for a plugin to force you to update your environment... that sounds like something a business driven model would do. I also understand the point that the Eclipse project deems 3.2 to be "old news", but if PHPEclipse's visions were parallel to that of the Eclipse Foundation, we'd all have joined the PDT project long ago. So let's not overlook the fact that we have a solution which we can "roll by hand" for the time being; and if we continue to see this as an issue as we approach future milestones, maybe it can be re-addressed then. I'd be happy to pickup Mr Mann's efforts at some point, should the need arise. Perhaps we could consider adding an "opt-in" anonymous usage statistics feature... something which reported a handful of platform and version number details on startup. In future, that would give us *some* idea of the builds in the wild and the platforms actively in use. Although, I think said feature would be even better in the Eclipse core. I think this is awesome progress... great work Mr Mann! Mike. |
|
From: James N. <Jne...@we...> - 2008-07-10 11:54:18
|
Edward Mann wrote: > So here i go again. I have been working on getting a fragment to work > that would allow PHPEclipse to run with Eclipse 3.2. I am running into > issues, and want to get input before i spend more time on getting this > fragment to work. > > Do we really need to support Eclipse 3.2 anymore? I had to google for > eclipse 3.2 just to find a download for it. On the Eclipse project site > it only goes back to 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2. It also has 3.4. > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ > At our office, we have a mixed rollout of Eclipse 3.2 and 3.3, so this won't affect us. If you consider the current release cycle, then the 1.2 tree will likely be around for a while. I guess that in 12 months 3.2 will be difficult to get hold of and won't be a big factor. > I know there was mention that some Linux distros still ship 3.2, but > that was months ago. Is 3.2 support still critical? If it is i will > press forward and get this compatibility fragment to work, if not i am > going to drop it and focus on getting 1.2.0 out the door. > > I'm running Ubuntu Hardy and 3.2 is in the repositories. This is a fair argument for having 3.2 support. But then again, those with eclipse 3.2 can always just use the 1.1 versions? If dropping 3.2 support allows for a better product faster, then those are compelling reasons. Is there any way that we can get an idea of the install base? Are there any eclipse studies/stats about usage? |
|
From: Lester C. <ls...@bt...> - 2008-07-10 05:27:38
|
Edward Mann wrote: > Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, we > will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we > push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support > Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done > quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with > Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major > release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can get > in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. > >>From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should target a > release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we > depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older > release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so > we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then > again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. But > your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but it's > gotta be worth fixing for me. As a user of a very old version of Eclipse ... I still have 3.1 on the laptop ... I'm more than happy with that. I have no idea what bug you are trying to fix - my builds of phpEclipse run fine, and the only thing that gives me jip is the 'tra' error bug - which is fixed on the 3.2 version. I just have not had time to move the laptop on. I STILL run Borland Builder 5/6, although the code editing is normally done in Eclipse. The simple cost of moving all that code forward to the latest Codegear compile is not worth the effort. The point I am probably making is WHY do we have to continually move the goal posts - and that starts at the OS level. Commercial interests like M$ would collapse if they could not wring more money out of people for useless updates such as XP and Vista. I'm still putting W2k on machines because it works well - especially when I don't want any of the M$ crap. They only run apache/php and firebird. NOW my most adament 'windows only' customers are allowing Linux in to power those machines - change another one Tuesday! With the continual moving target - something which is an utter waste of OUR time but which we can't do anything about - then lines have to be drawn. PHP4 has finally been laid to rest, earlier versions of Java are being dropped from support, even Linux has gained the useless feature churn on every new release. SO I have no problem with 'you need 1.1.0 on Eclipse 3.2' - I'm not sure if it is even practical, but the Eclipse INSTALLER should be able to understand that? They are the ones CREATING the problem so they need to be part of the solution? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-10 04:08:40
|
Ok, So i have had it with this 3.2 fragment issue. I have tried to get it to build, but my working environment is to new and is causing more issues for me working on 3.2. I have a version in Nightly that works. My idea is to keep it, make a update site for 3.2 and say if you want support move to 3.3. I have issues with 3.4 that i would like to work on, and i want to get things cleaned up for 3.4. So if someone else wants to take the 3.2 issue and work on it i will help where i can, it's mostly working, but it needs more attention, right now it will load the compatibility patch for everyone. I tried a workaround, but that only ended up in breaking the build. So i am throwing in the towel. I don't see it worth my time to get PHPEclipse 1.2.0 working on a very old version of Eclipse. Also as it seems only two people tend to answer these posts, Mbowie, we will have an arm wrestling match and the winner get's to decide if we push 1.2.0 out with 3.3 support only. The 1.2.0 series will support Eclipse 3.3. The 1.3.0 will support 3.4, and if we can get stuff done quicker than the 1.2.0 release, we will work on making 1.4.0 work with Eclipse 3.5 and have it out close to the time they do the next major release of Eclipse. Then maybe for the 3.6 release of Eclipse we can get in on the "all plug-ins release at same time" fun. >From talking with someone (zx) in the Eclipse channel we should target a release of PHPEclipse per Eclipse release. Because some items that we depend upon in a new release of PHPEclipse may not be in an older release of Eclipse. And like i said before we are not a large team, so we cannot branch and have people support different versions. But then again if someone wants to step forward and do that i am all for it. But your not volunteering me for the job. I don't mind fixing bugs, but it's gotta be worth fixing for me. |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-06 02:01:09
|
Everyone, I did download Eclipse 3.2 and was not able to reproduce the error reported in ticket #657 http://dev.phpeclipse.com/ticket/657 , granted that does not mean anything, i could have the evo setup wrong or not have the exact same updates. Can i get someone else to test this? I have posted a request as well on to the ticket. Maybe this is a specific built type of Eclipse. I will get the latest updates for 3.2 and see what that does. Maybe this request is to early, but i really want to get 1.2.0 out, and need as much help as i can get on fixing this issue. With plugin-builder the Eclipse 3.3 version supports fragments, but the 3.2 version does not. Go figure. And that is the version i am using to build PHPEclipse. Granted i can move it up to Eclipse 3.3, but i am not sure what problems that will create, if any. Eclipse 3.2 was (is) the target platform for PHPEclipse 1.2.0 but that was decided about a year ago, so if we should still hold to that decision is still up in the air. 1 vote for no(ed_mann), 1 vote for yes(mbowie). Now i would like to mention support, this is my rational for dropping 3.2 support. Currently right now there are 4 people that contribute actively to the PHPEclipse code base. mauroC aka incastrix, mbowie, scorphus and myself. Some developers have stopped working on PHPEclipse because we have not gotten 1.2.0 out the door, and they are looking forward to working on 1.3.0, or are punishing us for being so slow on releases. Also there are not many people giving support in the forums, or helping with documentation. Not that either one is fun, ( i find documentation fun), but it's something that needs to be done. So some developers are stepping in to fill those gaps as well. As it is Eclipse is moving forward. Right now they already started on the milestones for 3.5. The PHPEclipse project is still stuck on 3.2 support, with many people using 3.3 and some bugs with 3.4. I don't see how with the current number of developers we can support 3 different versions of Eclipse and try to be ready for another version in a year. (it has taken us 2 years just to get 1.2.0 ready, and it's still not done). With that many different versions of Eclipse and our small development team i feel it's stretching us to thin. I also feel that we are behind, and we will stay that way unless we limit what we will support. To me a maintainable structure would be to support 3.3 and 3.4. With our developers working on new release that will work with 3.4 and 3.5. Our production should support 2 versions 1. the latest release of Eclipse, 2. the previous release. Our development should support 2 versions as well. 1. the latest release of Eclipse 2. the development release of Eclipse. Baring no major changes happen in the development release of Eclipse that would create many headaches to support the older version. At that time the active developers would need to devise a strategy for moving forward. It has been brought up that some Linux distros and BSD's still ship with older versions of Eclipse. While i would like to support older versions, i feel we just don't have the resources to do it. The distros that ship old versions should update. But as we cannot control them and what they ship, nor should we be strongly influenced as to what we support and ship. With us supporting many versions of Eclipse will just build more bugs, and let's face it other than me people don't like working on bugs. I rather enjoy it, because it's broke so how could i break something that is already broke? jk. We want to stay competitive, but if we are using the limited time each developer has on tracking down bugs for many different versions of Eclipse we won't be giving much attention to new features, which there are many that PHPEclipse needs, to stay competitive and deliver the environment that PHP developers would be productive in. In closing i feel the way forward for the project is to limit the versions of Eclipse that we support, and advise people that have older versions to upgrade. Granted all older releases of PHPEclipse will be available for people to download if they are on an older version of Eclipse and we are at Eclipse 3.10. But they should not expect bugs to be fixed in those versions. On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 14:33 -0700, Mike Bowie wrote: > Edward Mann wrote: > > So here i go again. I have been working on getting a fragment to work > > that would allow PHPEclipse to run with Eclipse 3.2. I am running into > > issues, and want to get input before i spend more time on getting this > > fragment to work. > > > > Do we really need to support Eclipse 3.2 anymore? I had to google for > > eclipse 3.2 just to find a download for it. On the Eclipse project site > > it only goes back to 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2. It also has 3.4. > > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ > > > > I know there was mention that some Linux distros still ship 3.2, but > > that was months ago. Is 3.2 support still critical? If it is i will > > press forward and get this compatibility fragment to work, if not i am > > going to drop it and focus on getting 1.2.0 out the door. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Chaps, > > Given the handful of people who have come through IRC in the recent > months, I'd say that there is still an audience for 3.2... especially if > we consider that not all users who have a problem will make their way to > IRC. There's also the group of users who do not update their distro or > packages regularly. > > For me specifically, the FreeBSD ports tree still has 3.2 as the > standard Eclipse port; although 3.3 is available in eclipse-devel. (The > 3.4 port is coming, but I'm not doing very well with it so far.) > > AFAIK 3.2 was the project's target platform until the RSE bug arose... > I'm not sure that we should be so quick to leave it for dead. (My $0.02) > > Cheers, > > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike B. <mb...@bu...> - 2008-07-05 21:33:49
|
Edward Mann wrote: > So here i go again. I have been working on getting a fragment to work > that would allow PHPEclipse to run with Eclipse 3.2. I am running into > issues, and want to get input before i spend more time on getting this > fragment to work. > > Do we really need to support Eclipse 3.2 anymore? I had to google for > eclipse 3.2 just to find a download for it. On the Eclipse project site > it only goes back to 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2. It also has 3.4. > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ > > I know there was mention that some Linux distros still ship 3.2, but > that was months ago. Is 3.2 support still critical? If it is i will > press forward and get this compatibility fragment to work, if not i am > going to drop it and focus on getting 1.2.0 out the door. > > > Thanks. > Chaps, Given the handful of people who have come through IRC in the recent months, I'd say that there is still an audience for 3.2... especially if we consider that not all users who have a problem will make their way to IRC. There's also the group of users who do not update their distro or packages regularly. For me specifically, the FreeBSD ports tree still has 3.2 as the standard Eclipse port; although 3.3 is available in eclipse-devel. (The 3.4 port is coming, but I'm not doing very well with it so far.) AFAIK 3.2 was the project's target platform until the RSE bug arose... I'm not sure that we should be so quick to leave it for dead. (My $0.02) Cheers, Mike. -- "You don't see FreeBSD developers sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting the overthrow of Microsoft. We sit in light, airy rooms and plot where to get the best drinks." - Michael Lucas |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-07-04 15:27:44
|
So here i go again. I have been working on getting a fragment to work that would allow PHPEclipse to run with Eclipse 3.2. I am running into issues, and want to get input before i spend more time on getting this fragment to work. Do we really need to support Eclipse 3.2 anymore? I had to google for eclipse 3.2 just to find a download for it. On the Eclipse project site it only goes back to 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2. It also has 3.4. http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ I know there was mention that some Linux distros still ship 3.2, but that was months ago. Is 3.2 support still critical? If it is i will press forward and get this compatibility fragment to work, if not i am going to drop it and focus on getting 1.2.0 out the door. Thanks. |
|
From: Philippe O. <pom...@ne...> - 2008-06-25 05:44:01
|
Guy:s sorry for the late reply... but Im +1 for all the proposed resolutions. -- Cheers Philippe philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net - http://eclipse.org/atf - http://eclipse.org/vep - http://labs.jboss.org/drools/ - http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner > -----Original Message----- > From: php...@li... > [mailto:php...@li...] On > Behalf Of Edward Mann > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:48 AM > To: php...@li... > Subject: [Phpeclipse-devel] Vote tallie > > > Team, > > Below are the totals from the vote. > > 1. Project constitution. > For = 4 > Against = 0 > > 2.spi-inc.org > For = 4 > Against = 0 > > 3. Assets that PHPEclipse depends on. > For = 4 > Against = 0 > > 4. defaulting on the implementation of a separate www website. > For = 4 > Against = 0 > > 5. Relocating the current SVN and Trac site to hudson.phpeclipse.com > For = 4 > Against = 0 > > > All resolutions passed by my count. Need to hear from Mike > Bowie and if > results match we can proceed forward. We are getting so much closer to > 1.2.0 being out. :-) > > Thanks. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php > _______________________________________________ > Phpeclipse-devel mailing list > Php...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpeclipse-devel > |
|
From: Edward M. <ed...@ed...> - 2008-06-24 02:49:18
|
Lester, I will put that on my list to get updated and make sure the team has the information to update that site. Thanks. On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:41 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > Edward Mann wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Does anyone know who owns the entry for PHPEclipse in > > eclipseplugincentral? I would like to update the information, but i > > would need the person that added the entry to give me access to it. > > > > http://eclipseplugincentral.com/Web_Links-index-req-viewlink-cid-108.html > > Had a check - but it's not one I put up ;) > > http://www.eclipse-plugins.info/eclipse/plugin_details.jsp?id=106 could do > with updating as well. > |
|
From: Lester C. <ls...@bt...> - 2008-06-23 18:43:20
|
Edward Mann wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone know who owns the entry for PHPEclipse in > eclipseplugincentral? I would like to update the information, but i > would need the person that added the entry to give me access to it. > > http://eclipseplugincentral.com/Web_Links-index-req-viewlink-cid-108.html Had a check - but it's not one I put up ;) http://www.eclipse-plugins.info/eclipse/plugin_details.jsp?id=106 could do with updating as well. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php |
|
From: Lester C. <ls...@bt...> - 2008-06-23 18:35:25
|
Mike Bowie wrote: > Edward Mann wrote: >> Team, >> >> Below are the totals from the vote. >> >> 1. Project constitution. >> For = 4 >> Against = 0 >> >> 2.spi-inc.org >> For = 4 >> Against = 0 >> >> 3. Assets that PHPEclipse depends on. >> For = 4 >> Against = 0 >> >> 4. defaulting on the implementation of a separate www website. >> For = 4 >> Against = 0 >> >> 5. Relocating the current SVN and Trac site to hudson.phpeclipse.com >> For = 4 >> Against = 0 >> >> >> All resolutions passed by my count. Need to hear from Mike Bowie and if >> results match we can proceed forward. We are getting so much closer to >> 1.2.0 being out. :-) >> >> Thanks. > > Not that it's rocket science with volumes like this, but my counts > match. ;-) I think I probably abstained ... I was working on site all weekend so am only just catching up :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php |
29 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
